Is this really even true or are you basing it upon this quiz that anyone could have thrown together to achieve their neocon agenda? Anyone have a credible outside source backing up this claim?
Chomsky's DOD contracts were for his linguistic works. For example, his first book, Syntactic Structures, was subsidized by the army. It's fairly innocuous, but still inherently hypocritical.
I also think almost every one is a bit of a hypocrit.
I think this is very true. I also think that public figures who speak a lot and have nearly every word out of their mouth documented would have an extremely hard time never contradicting themselves or being hypocritical in some way. But it's true, we're all hypocrites to some degree. The stronger you believe something or the more attention your belief gets determines how much of a hypocrite you're labled as being.
Chomsky's DOD contracts were for his linguistic works. For example, his first book, Syntactic Structures, was subsidized by the army. It's fairly innocuous, but still inherently hypocritical.
OIC, thanks. Yeah, seems harmless. It's not at all like he's investing in Boeing or something, but I can see why some would see him as a hypocrite because of this.
I'm quite sure that Rand would call any lesbian, black person, white person, man, woman or gay man who attempted to use the force of government to extract special privileges from others some very ugly names.
"It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises …. Therefore I regard it as immoral … And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It’s disgusting." - Ayn Rand.
Of course a logical counter argument would be that she didn't believe in the criminalization of homosexuality - but that's a little convenient. See, on a personal level, she didn't like them.
Look, Rand is anti-collectivist. Collectivism is at the heart of the feminist and racial rights movements. The statements you're highlighting are taken from her critiques of such movements.
Seems kind of strange since Dagny Taggart, Rand's archetype for the highest form of femininity, described in 1957, sleeps around, is a business executive, has an utter disdain for household chores, has and desires no children, has no interest in marriage, and lives only for her self and no others......
I suppose I'd have to read the book to decide if this Dagny is actually the "highest form of femininity" or if Rand was simply being quirky by giving a masculine character a vagina.
"It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises …. Therefore I regard it as immoral … And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It’s disgusting." - Ayn Rand.
Of course a logical counter argument would be that she didn't believe in the criminalization of homosexuality - but that's a little convenient. See, on a personal level, she didn't like them.
On personal level, Rand vacillated (as many do) between whether or not homosexuality was chosen path. Rand's personal judgment would have been based on that issue alone, as is indicated by her statement:
"We do not know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality."
Rand's philosophy deems that morality is found only in choice. Therefore, if one is "born gay", it cannot be immoral.
Regardless, Rand's ultimate statement on this issue is found here:
"It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it"
Personal judgments or not, Rand in no way would sanction any power structures based on a rejection of homosexuals.
I never called Ayn Rand a racist.
Fair enough -- that was a different poster. However, the principles outlined in Rand's "Racism" apply equally to sexism and homosexuality (if one assumes a genetic predisposition). Rand strongly believed any judgments of virtue or vice based on genetic factors to be inherently invalid.
"An ideal woman is a man-worshiper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind."
Man=God
Woman=Worshiper of Man (God).
This is a vast oversimplification that makes no sense in light of Rand's works. You'll find, for example, that there are more men who "worship" Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged than men she "worships". Worship, to Rand, is based not on subservience, but rather on an equalilty of mutually earned respect. Rand would call a person who worships their better a leech and a person who worships their lesser a fool.
You keep trying to ascribe Judeo-Christian issues of inferiority to such language. Rand's philosophy inherently rejects superiority or inferiority based on birth or in the absence of morality. Rand believes that moral equality between the worshiper and the worshiped is required for worship, and says it in the very same passage.
I suppose I'd have to read the book to decide if this Dagny is actually the "highest form of femininity" or if Rand was simply being quirky by giving a masculine character a vagina.
This is an absurd back-peddle. Dagny Taggart is a fundamentally different character than the male counterparts in the work, as are numerous other women throughout Rand's novels. Furthermore, Dagny and other women are demonstrated to be morally superior to the vast majority of the men in her books.
So what you're saying, far, is that a person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual things they've said - particularly if they've been taken out of context.
So what you're saying, far, is that a person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual things they've said - particularly if they've been taken out of context.
Someone's "overall philosophical outlook" is simply a collection of the individual things they've said, thought and done. You can't have an "overall philosophical outlook" that is more important than the indvidual pieces that it's comprised of.
Each component of a philosophy should be taken in its totallity, including its context and any contradictions of other components.
Someone's "overall philosophical outlook" is simply a collection of the individual things they've said, thought and done. You can't have an "overall philosophical outlook" that is more important than the indvidual pieces that it's comprised of.
Each component of a philosophy should be taken in its totallity, including its context and any contradictions of other components.
But you've already established that a person's opinions on a matter can change over time - or even with circumstance.
A person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual pieces that it's "comprised" of - i.e. greater than the sum of it's parts. Plus, people engage in and say things that have absolutely nothing to do with their overall philosophical outlook all the time. Ayn Rand did not like homosexuals - in fact, she considered them immoral and discusting - at least if we are to believe what she actually said and if we hold that statement to her for the entirety of her life. However, her philosophy prohibited her from "acting" on it, as it were - and therefore her statements were apart from her philosophy.
But you've already established that a person's opinions on a matter can change over time - or even with circumstance.
Sure! I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
A person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual pieces that it's "comprised" of - i.e. greater than the sum of it's parts.
How?
Plus, people engage in and say things that have absolutely nothing to do with their overall philosophical outlook all the time. Ayn Rand did not like homosexuals - in fact, she considered them immoral and discusting - at least if we are to believe what she actually said and if we hold that statement to her for the entirety of her life. However, her philosophy prohibited her from "acting" on it, as it were - and therefore her statements were apart from her philosophy.
Not really, no. Personally, I think abortions are "immoral and disgusting", but I don't support laws banning it, and those two positions are completely consistent with my philosophy. Any animosity Rand had for gays was based on what she would identify as a choice to be gay which, in her mind, would revolve around some incorrect premises.
Furthermore, Rand's statements are still largely aimed at movements demanding privileges for homosexuals and other collectives. Rand did and would fiercely defend the right of homosexual individuals to make their own choices. Because of that, there are many homosexuals who find much inspiration in Rand's works, particularly The Fountainhead that features very loving (though non-sexual) relationships between certain men. She's even enshrined in Russia's Gay Hall of Fame.
Furthermore, Rand's statements are still largely aimed at movements demanding privileges for homosexuals and other collectives. Rand did and would fiercely defend the right of homosexual individuals to make their own choices. Because of that, there are many homosexuals who find much inspiration in Rand's works, particularly The Fountainhead that features very loving (though non-sexual) relationships between certain men. She's even enshrined in Russia's Gay Hall of Fame.
She was also an inspiration to the Chicken Fucker in South Park - though, I believe it was Officer Barbrady who had the right idea.
But, then, I am spending a lot of time arguing over an author I've never actually read - at least nothing in its entirety. My purpose here is to show you that things can be spun to whatever end you're trying to reach. You're encyclopedic knowledge of Ayn Rand allows you to cast many things she's said in a certain, more positive light (though I'd call it strategic discarding - but there you go). The same goes for most of the "liberal hypocrites" from the opening post.
A person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual pieces that it's "comprised" of - i.e. greater than the sum of it's parts.
She was also an inspiration to the Chicken Fucker in South Park - though, I believe it was Officer Barbrady who had the right idea.
But, then, I am spending a lot of time arguing over an author I've never actually read - at least nothing in its entirety. My purpose here is to show you that things can be spun to whatever end you're trying to reach. You're encyclopedic knowledge of Ayn Rand allows you to cast many things she's said in a certain, more positive light (though I'd call it strategic discarding - but there you go). The same goes for most of the "liberal hypocrites" from the opening post.
I'm not sure what you're disproving here. I've never really indicated that the originally posted list has any credence whatsoever. I will go on record to say that Michael Moore is especially guilty as charged, but the vast majority of the rest are portrayed to be massive hypocrites when in fact there is only a slight hypocrisy or a misinterpreted situation.
I'd encourage you to read Rand's writings, if only to expose yourself to a philosophy that you don't see much of elsewhere. Whether or not you connect with it, I'm quite sure that you'll find racism, sexism, and homophobia to be antithetical to Rand's philosophies.
By being that way.
If I said "2+2=5" and then told you it's true "by being that way", would you accept that answer?
If I said "2+2=5" and then told you it's true "by being that way", would you accept that answer?
No. Not anymore than the "2+2=3" that you're currently trying to sell me.
I'm not trying to "disprove" anything - hell, if anything, I'm trying to "prove" something: there are no shining examples of human decency once every detail of that human - everything they've said, everything they've done - is "revealed." Therefore, single statements or actions to not measure up to an overall philosophy.
No. Not anymore than the "2+2=3" that you're currently trying to sell me.
I never said that someone's overall philosophy is less than the sum of its parts. I said it was equal to it. So I'm "selling you" 2+2=4.
I'm not trying to "disprove" anything - hell, if anything, I'm trying to "prove" something: there are no shining examples of human decency once every detail of that human - everything they've said, everything they've done - is "revealed." Therefore, single statements or actions to not measure up to an overall philosophy.
No, selected "single statements or actions" do not measure up. All actions and statements do.
That's what your tellin' me, but I'm still seeing a "3".
Then you obviously believe something's missing from my account. What is missing?
So, what you're saying is a person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual or selected things they've said.
Not "more important" -- more accurate. For example, you say that Ayn Rand hates gays by cherry-picking one or two statements in the face of many others that paint a much more complete picture. Similarly, others say that Noam Chomsky is a DOD lackey by cherry-picking one or two actions in the face of others that paint a much more complete picture.
Hypocrisy, to any extent, is surely a universal human quality. However, there are many degrees to which a person can be a hypocrite. Furthermore, it is not an unavoidable or excusable quality in any amount.
Then you obviously believe something's missing from my account. What is missing?
I never said something is missing from your account. I'm saying that, in many respects, I disagree with you in the same way I disagree that 2+2=3.
As an example, let's take the statement
which really doesn't mean anymore than what I said - 'cept for a different word choice. Perhaps you're trying to take it in a different direction, but I'm not following.
For example, you say that Ayn Rand hates gays by cherry-picking one or two statements in the face of many others that paint a much more complete picture. Similarly, others say that Noam Chomsky is a DOD lackey by cherry-picking one or two actions in the face of others that paint a much more complete picture.
I.e. those statements or actions - singularly - are less important than the overall picture. Less accurate, too, sure. But also less important. I could say you subtracted the word "important" (an important word in it's own right) and left me holding a "3".
Hypocrisy, to any extent, is surely a universal human quality. However, there are many degrees to which a person can be a hypocrite. Furthermore, it is not an unavoidable or excusable quality in any amount.
This would probably represent the 2s. I don't have any problem with the 2s.
I was the original poster who said that Rand was racist/sexist/homophobic/classist and I stand by those claims (more on this in a second). However, I think Rand has a positive direction for where we'd like to be as a society, but unfortunately her theory of objectivity falls short on a number of counts:
1. It is ahistorical
Sure it would be nice to live in a society where everyone could live free for themselves, and their histories, but it objectivity does not address what people actually must go through to be a human in this world.
2. It is theoretically abstract without actually addressing lived realities.
Mentioned above, it would be cool to live where we don't view people as superior or inferior based on race (a social construct not genetic), class (again a social construct), gender (social again since we tend to view people as male and female despite the fact that their is transsexuality, 7 different sexes, and gender bending), sexuality (aren't we all a bit multisexual?). However historically this hasn't been the case, as such, how can we just go "let's all be objective now" and forget the past which as Marx says -himself a noted sexist- "weighs like an alp on the present".
3. It is therefore not radically contextual
You'd like to think that it could change overnight, but by claiming individuality without addressing the contemporary moment's themes of domination you're really paving the way for the dominant class to maintain their dominance while simulataneously giving them the basis to claim that they are not racist/classist/sexist/sexualist because giving subordinated peoples the same privileges that many dominant peoples were born with would be some sort of attack on the dominant class - which is the essence of neoliberalism. For example it's not all that worth it to claim objectivity when we live in a world where kids are sewing our soccer balls, tshirts, sneakers etc. for 12 cents a day. It's not going to change anything, it just clouds people's judgement of those in power.
In conclusion then I feel that Rand has her heart in the right place, but she is not interventionist enough to exact the change necessary to get to the point where objectivity could actually work. In other words, the playing field for all humans is nowhere near even enough to all of a sudden say "lets all be objective now", not when we still have 30% of our minority population living in poverty, not when our jails are being filled with minorities to benefit the rich, and not when the rich can continue to maintain their power without being checked. For example we can all bag on W, or Clinton or whomever, but their terms end and their power diminishes, whereas when was the last time we went after and removed the Phil Knights, and Bill Gates of the world from their perch of unvoted dominance? Until this change happens I will see your Ayn Rand and raise you Stuart Hall and Paulo Freire - we gotta fuck shit up before we can be objective.
1. It is ahistorical
Sure it would be nice to live in a society where everyone could live free for themselves, and their histories, but it objectivity does not address what people actually must go through to be a human in this world.
What must people "go through" to be human?
2. It is theoretically abstract without actually addressing lived realities.
Mentioned above, it would be cool to live where we don't view people as superior or inferior based on race (a social construct not genetic), class (again a social construct), gender (social again since we tend to view people as male and female despite the fact that their is transsexuality, 7 different sexes, and gender bending), sexuality (aren't we all a bit multisexual?). However historically this hasn't been the case, as such, how can we just go "let's all be objective now" and forget the past which as Marx says -himself a noted sexist- "weighs like an alp on the present".
Umm...this is weird. Would you not agree that gender and race views are different than they were 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 500 years ago? Is it your contention that progress to something approaching an ideal is impossible simply because "it's never been that way"???
Also, Rand's core philosophies don't really require everyone to subscribe to such viewpoints. Rather, Rand's core philosophies teach you to reject those viewpoints for yourself and to treat them in others with the simple derision you apply to any other illogical human behavior.
3. It is therefore not radically contextual
You'd like to think that it could change overnight, but by claiming individuality without addressing the contemporary moment's themes of domination you're really paving the way for the dominant class to maintain their dominance while simulataneously giving them the basis to claim that they are not racist/classist/sexist/sexualist because giving subordinated peoples the same privileges that many dominant peoples were born with would be some sort of attack on the dominant class - which is the essence of neoliberalism. For example it's not all that worth it to claim objectivity when we live in a world where kids are sewing our soccer balls, tshirts, sneakers etc. for 12 cents a day. It's not going to change anything, it just clouds people's judgement of those in power.
The dominant class of today is the class that controls government. Rand's philosophy rejects their tool (violence). And since we pay for those tools, eliminating our support will eliminate their power. So I don't really see how this is a valid refutation. Furthermore, I'm not sure how anyone would claim that Rand's philosophy requires "overnight" change???
In conclusion then I feel that Rand has her heart in the right place, but she is not interventionist enough to exact the change necessary to get to the point where objectivity could actually work. In other words, the playing field for all humans is nowhere near even enough to all of a sudden say "lets all be objective now"
I think Rand would have a good laugh over your use of the words "for all humans". Rand would tell you that making decisions based on "all humans" is close to the height of stupidity.
not when we still have 30% of our minority population living in poverty, not when our jails are being filled with minorities to benefit the rich, and not when the rich can continue to maintain their power without being checked. For example we can all bag on W, or Clinton or whomever, but their terms end and their power diminishes, whereas when was the last time we went after and removed the Phil Knights, and Bill Gates of the world from their perch of unvoted dominance? Until this change happens I will see your Ayn Rand and raise you Stuart Hall and Paulo Freire - we gotta fuck shit up before we can be objective.
You've already "fucked shit up". That's your problem to begin with. Repeal your taxes. Repeal your laws. Dismantle any branch of government not concerned with the protection of the basic individual right of liberty. Do it slowly, if you feel it's necessary.
Can't you see that lassez faire life would benefit those who are already in power, those that already have the privilege, those that are already dominating us? How is repealing taxes going to benefit the little kid in the Dominican Republic whose life depends on Baseball, Nike, or working in sugar factories? How is taking away taxes going to help improve schools in the inner city? How can you have objectivity without being on an even playing field? If the last 40 years that we've lived under Rand-ish neoliberalism have shown us anything is that the very rich will keep the money for themselves and not let it trickle down. So if we just repeal taxes, etc. how is this going to make a positive "objective" change in the future.
What I am saying is that before we can repeal taxes I want Bill Gates to go to the single worst public school in the United States and claim that his child will have the same educational and life opportunities that he/she would get at Gillman or whatever private school that child will go to. I want George W. Bush, and Cornel West to walk into a room and not have people assume things about them because of the hue of their skin. This can't happen if we go about objectivity the way Rand would like to. If we want a fair and just society to be objective in then the subordinated need to have a physical and ideological voice in this country (TV stations/newspapers/credit card companies/postions in political office/etc.) so that we are daily made conscious of the differences in opportunity between the priveleged and underprivileged (which is the Freirean model), we need to remove those who refuse to relinquish their power (the McLaren/Giroux/Guevara method), and then we can remove taxes and let people begin on a truly level playing field.
Can't you see that lassez faire life would benefit those who are already in power, those that already have the privilege, those that are already dominating us?
Can't you see that those dominating you are dominating you solely because they have the force of governments backing them up??? Lassez faire means no more patents, no more copyrights, no more tax breaks, no more tariffs, no more subsidies?
You think people like Bill Gates are "dominating" you, despite the fact that they do not force you to work for them or buy their products??? The same cannot be said for your government.
How is repealing taxes going to benefit the little kid in the Dominican Republic whose life depends on Baseball, Nike, or working in sugar factories?
No one's life "depends" on Baseball, Nike, or sugar factories. A good life depends on achievement. And when that Dominican boy achieves something, repealing taxes ensures that his achievements cannot be expropriated by the Dominican boy who does not achieve anything.
How is taking away taxes going to help improve schools in the inner city?
By ensuring that those schools earn their money.
How can you have objectivity without being on an even playing field?
By recognizing that the playing field is comprised of three elements: body, mind and environment and the fact that those three things are not universally even, nor should they be.
If the last 40 years that we've lived under Rand-ish neoliberalism have shown us anything is that the very rich will keep the money for themselves and not let it trickle down.
In the last 40 years, you've expanded the size and influence of governments to heights not seen in generations, and largely destroyed the concept of the individual. Rand and neoliberalism are nearly opposites.
So if we just repeal taxes, etc. how is this going to make a positive "objective" change in the future.
By ensuring that those who earn, own.
What I am saying is that before we can repeal taxes I want Bill Gates to go to the single worst public school in the United States and claim that his child will have the same educational and life opportunities that he/she would get at Gillman or whatever private school that child will go to. I want George W. Bush, and Cornel West to walk into a room and not have people assume things about them because of the hue of their skin. This can't happen if we go about objectivity the way Rand would like to. If we want a fair and just society to be objective in then the subordinated need to have a physical and ideological voice in this country (TV stations/newspapers/credit card companies/postions in political office/etc.) so that we are daily made conscious of the differences in opportunity between the priveleged and underprivileged (which is the Freirean model), we need to remove those who refuse to relinquish their power (the McLaren/Giroux/Guevara method), and then we can remove taxes and let people begin on a truly level playing field.
So you're a revenge hound, eh? Good luck with that.
If you want people to have a "physical and ideological voice", remove that which prevents them from speaking for themselves -- their obligations to another.
If you want remove those who refuse to relinquish their power, remove that which sanctions it and supports it -- your laws and taxes.
Can't you see that those dominating you are dominating you solely because they have the force of governments backing them up??? Lassez faire means no more patents, no more copyrights, no more tax breaks, no more tariffs, no more subsidies?
You think people like Bill Gates are "dominating" you, despite the fact that they do not force you to work for them or buy their products??? The same cannot be said for your government.
They are dominating me because they ARE our government. They choose who gets voted, what they sanction, and who they sanction for. If said politicians don't do so they get executed (from King to Hussein), or don't get money from corporate leaders to push their next campaign. Therefore the real people with power in this country are our company owners who never get voted in or out but have a large base of power through money. The illusion is that you have a choice, that just because you don't work for microsoft or buy microsoft that it doesn't have an influence on your life...well that's just plain bullshit.
No one's life "depends" on Baseball, Nike, or sugar factories. A good life depends on achievement. And when that Dominican boy achieves something, repealing taxes ensures that his achievements cannot be expropriated by the Dominican boy who does not achieve anything.
Are you fucking insane...do you understand that you don't have a choice when it comes to putting food on the table? Have you ever lived in, or known anyone that has had absolutely nothing to the point that they would die if they didn't sell drugs, play baseball, work 80 hour days for Nike? How can you achieve when you don't have anything to achieve in?
How? By taking away their money through things like NCLB? Doing better on standardized tests that are built for the dominant classes, since they are the ones who can afford to take test preps, get schooling from good instructors, and in schools that have things like books from the year 2000?
By recognizing that the playing field is comprised of three elements: body, mind and environment and the fact that those three things are not universally even, nor should they be.
Why? I'm guessing the person telling you this is someone who was not brought up in a working class environment. You just don't get it, that's what rich people like Ayn Rand say to ease their minds.
In the last 40 years, you've expanded the size and influence of governments to heights not seen in generations, and largely destroyed the concept of the individual. Rand and neoliberalism are nearly opposites.
Rand and neoliberalism are NOT nearly opposites. Government has little or no power anymore it's in corporations owned by collections of INDIVIDUALS. We live in a world where 1/2 of the richest countries in the world are corporations, and you are trying to tell me that government influences stuff, that's just wrong. Especially when you see who is in government, and how they get into and remain in it.
So you're a revenge hound, eh? Good luck with that.
In capitalism money is what controls it's pretty simple...that's neoliberalism, the rolling back of government control and movement toward corporate control...that's rand-ISH. It's fucking this world up. Morover, Revenge is the word people who have privilege use when those who are dominated wish to regain privilege. That's not revenge that is justice.
If you want people to have a "physical and ideological voice", remove that which prevents them from speaking for themselves -- their obligations to another.
If you want remove those who refuse to relinquish their power, remove that which sanctions it and supports it -- your laws and taxes.
Where do people get their information of the day? Where do people learn? Who controls what we see, hear, and what we cherish? Laws and taxes do NOT. It's corporately controlled media centers like FOX/DISNEY/Westinghouse etc. owned by the few but has the ideological control of the many. I say take those motherfuckers out and start a new publcily centered mediated world. Again that's not revenge, or jealousy that's a need to have more voices, majority voices, heard...not just the words of the privileged few that you so willingly listen to and love.
They are dominating me because they ARE our government. They choose who gets voted, what they sanction, and who they sanction for. If said politicians don't do so they get executed (from King to Hussein), or don't get money from corporate leaders to push their next campaign. Therefore the real people with power in this country are our company owners who never get voted in or out but have a large base of power through money.
This is a fascinating conspiracy view you paint, but I have a lot of trouble marrying it to a world wherein anti-corporate politicians are still regularly elected. Can you even explain, if such corporate evil-doers hold the true power in this country, why we have corporate taxation?
The illusion is that you have a choice, that just because you don't work for microsoft or buy microsoft that it doesn't have an influence on your life...well that's just plain bullshit.
Again, I'm having trouble marrying this to a world where companies like Enron go bankrupt, or a world where fortunes are regularly lost when consumers simply choose to withhold their money.
Are you fucking insane...
No.
do you understand that you don't have a choice when it comes to putting food on the table?
Really? So no choices were involved in whatever you had for dinner tonight?
Have you ever lived in, or known anyone that has had absolutely nothing to the point that they would die if they didn't sell drugs, play baseball, work 80 hour days for Nike?
So you believe that there are people directly born into a situation where they have only 3 options: sell drugs, play baseball or work 80 hour days for Nike? Can you name one?
How can you achieve when you don't have anything to achieve in?
Every single person alive has a world to achieve in.
How? By taking away their money through things like NCLB? Doing better on standardized tests that are built for the dominant classes, since they are the ones who can afford to take test preps, get schooling from good instructors, and in schools that have things like books from the year 2000?
NCLB -- a standardized path implemented by a federal government without any consideration to the wishes of a community is what I'm railing against, not supporting.
Separating education from forced taxation requires that a school earn its income, and that means it must directly appeal to the wishes of the community that supports it.
Why? I'm guessing the person telling you this is someone who was not brought up in a working class environment.
I was brought up in a family where my father was too drunk to work and my mother was a waitress and then a social worker. I'd advise you not to make any assumptions about the environment I grew up in.
You just don't get it, that's what rich people like Ayn Rand say to ease their minds.
Why would my mind need easing?
Rand and neoliberalism are NOT nearly opposites.
Neo-liberalism requires the marriage of government and corporations. Rand requires the complete separation of the two.
Government has little or no power anymore it's in corporations owned by collections of INDIVIDUALS.
Care to justify this at all? Government has more power than ever, measured by its own size and influence. Government now infringes on more aspects in our daily lives than ever in American history. All the corporations in this country combined generate roughly $12T annually. The federal government alone now expropriates 1/12 of that. The vast majority of the "evil" corporations you would likely cite are owned not by a few individuals but rather average 401k stockholders and other investors, the very people you're pretending to defend.
We live in a world where 1/2 of the richest countries in the world are corporations, and you are trying to tell me that government influences stuff, that's just wrong.
So the government has no influence in the War in Iraq? The government had no influence in the events of 9/11? The government had no influence in the trillions expropriated in the past year? The government had no influence in the incarceration of millions of Americans?
Especially when you see who is in government, and how they get into and remain in it.
Again, the very people you're pretending to defend still elect those leaders.
Sounds earily like a slaveowner mentality to me.
How so? A slaveowner earns nothing, which is the exact opposite of what I said.
In capitalism money is what controls it's pretty simple...that's neoliberalism, the rolling back of government control and movement toward corporate control...that's rand-ISH.
No. Neoliberalism is marrying corporations and government. It's putting the force of government into the hands of a few, and it will be the death of this world if it goes unchecked.
If you believe Ayn Rand wants goverments and business in bed together, you don't know anything about Ayn Rand.
It's fucking this world up. Morover, Revenge is the word people who have privilege use when those who are dominated wish to regain privilege. That's not revenge that is justice.
I'm sure to you revenge and justice are no different. An eye for an eye.....
When a slave enslaves his master, that's revenge. When a slave destroys that which makes slavery possible, that's justice. The oppression you're lamenting is made possible by the force your governments have monopolized, now being wielded by corporations, unions, and other special interests groups who understood your game better than you do.
Where do people get their information of the day?
From their own resources, or from whomever they wish to trade for it.
Where do people learn?
From their own resources, or from whomever they wish to trade for it.
Who controls what we see, hear, and what we cherish?
We do, or whomever we wish to trade our control to.
Laws and taxes do NOT. It's corporately controlled media centers like FOX/DISNEY/Westinghouse etc. owned by the few but has the ideological control of the many. I say take those motherfuckers out and start a new publcily centered mediated world. Again that's not revenge, or jealousy that's a need to have more voices, majority voices, heard...not just the words of the privileged few that you so willingly listen to and love.
"Take those motherfuckers out" isn't revenge, huh? The "voice" you speak of sounds like nothing more than a gun.
And there you go....you've now justified every injustice you previously pretended to attack.
If the gun is "the best way", on what grounds can you reject those whose guns are aimed at you?
I'm not sure that I've justified having guns aimed at me though I'm sure some things I have knowingly and unknowingly done have probably earned me that fate. I'm just saying if someone is trying to take your land, claim that they are developing, and then, given your upbringing, based around a self-sufficient agrarian society put you in a near-impossible situation I don't think that fighting back with force to retain that which is rightfully yours is all that ludicrous.
I'm not sure that I've justified having guns aimed at me though I'm sure some things I have knowingly and unknowingly done have probably earned me that fate.
I don't know everything you done. All I know is that, above, you said that the best solution to your problem was the use of guns. If you believe you have that right, so does everyone else.
I'm just saying if someone is trying to take your land, claim that they are developing, and then, given your upbringing, based around a self-sufficient agrarian society put you in a near-impossible situation I don't think that fighting back with force to retain that which is rightfully yours is all that ludicrous.
How in God's name can you claim ownership of land when you're about to demonstrate that the only right of ownership extends from violence???
Comments
Chomsky's DOD contracts were for his linguistic works. For example, his first book, Syntactic Structures, was subsidized by the army. It's fairly innocuous, but still inherently hypocritical.
Of course a logical counter argument would be that she didn't believe in the criminalization of homosexuality - but that's a little convenient. See, on a personal level, she didn't like them. I never called Ayn Rand a racist.
Man=God
Woman=Worshiper of Man (God).
I suppose I'd have to read the book to decide if this Dagny is actually the "highest form of femininity" or if Rand was simply being quirky by giving a masculine character a vagina.
On personal level, Rand vacillated (as many do) between whether or not homosexuality was chosen path. Rand's personal judgment would have been based on that issue alone, as is indicated by her statement:
"We do not know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality."
Rand's philosophy deems that morality is found only in choice. Therefore, if one is "born gay", it cannot be immoral.
Regardless, Rand's ultimate statement on this issue is found here:
"It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it"
Personal judgments or not, Rand in no way would sanction any power structures based on a rejection of homosexuals.
Fair enough -- that was a different poster. However, the principles outlined in Rand's "Racism" apply equally to sexism and homosexuality (if one assumes a genetic predisposition). Rand strongly believed any judgments of virtue or vice based on genetic factors to be inherently invalid.
This is a vast oversimplification that makes no sense in light of Rand's works. You'll find, for example, that there are more men who "worship" Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged than men she "worships". Worship, to Rand, is based not on subservience, but rather on an equalilty of mutually earned respect. Rand would call a person who worships their better a leech and a person who worships their lesser a fool.
You keep trying to ascribe Judeo-Christian issues of inferiority to such language. Rand's philosophy inherently rejects superiority or inferiority based on birth or in the absence of morality. Rand believes that moral equality between the worshiper and the worshiped is required for worship, and says it in the very same passage.
This is an absurd back-peddle. Dagny Taggart is a fundamentally different character than the male counterparts in the work, as are numerous other women throughout Rand's novels. Furthermore, Dagny and other women are demonstrated to be morally superior to the vast majority of the men in her books.
Someone's "overall philosophical outlook" is simply a collection of the individual things they've said, thought and done. You can't have an "overall philosophical outlook" that is more important than the indvidual pieces that it's comprised of.
Each component of a philosophy should be taken in its totallity, including its context and any contradictions of other components.
A person's overall philosophical outlook is more important than the individual pieces that it's "comprised" of - i.e. greater than the sum of it's parts. Plus, people engage in and say things that have absolutely nothing to do with their overall philosophical outlook all the time. Ayn Rand did not like homosexuals - in fact, she considered them immoral and discusting - at least if we are to believe what she actually said and if we hold that statement to her for the entirety of her life. However, her philosophy prohibited her from "acting" on it, as it were - and therefore her statements were apart from her philosophy.
Sure! I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
How?
Not really, no. Personally, I think abortions are "immoral and disgusting", but I don't support laws banning it, and those two positions are completely consistent with my philosophy. Any animosity Rand had for gays was based on what she would identify as a choice to be gay which, in her mind, would revolve around some incorrect premises.
Furthermore, Rand's statements are still largely aimed at movements demanding privileges for homosexuals and other collectives. Rand did and would fiercely defend the right of homosexual individuals to make their own choices. Because of that, there are many homosexuals who find much inspiration in Rand's works, particularly The Fountainhead that features very loving (though non-sexual) relationships between certain men. She's even enshrined in Russia's Gay Hall of Fame.
But, then, I am spending a lot of time arguing over an author I've never actually read - at least nothing in its entirety. My purpose here is to show you that things can be spun to whatever end you're trying to reach. You're encyclopedic knowledge of Ayn Rand allows you to cast many things she's said in a certain, more positive light (though I'd call it strategic discarding - but there you go). The same goes for most of the "liberal hypocrites" from the opening post.
By being that way.
I'm not sure what you're disproving here. I've never really indicated that the originally posted list has any credence whatsoever. I will go on record to say that Michael Moore is especially guilty as charged, but the vast majority of the rest are portrayed to be massive hypocrites when in fact there is only a slight hypocrisy or a misinterpreted situation.
I'd encourage you to read Rand's writings, if only to expose yourself to a philosophy that you don't see much of elsewhere. Whether or not you connect with it, I'm quite sure that you'll find racism, sexism, and homophobia to be antithetical to Rand's philosophies.
If I said "2+2=5" and then told you it's true "by being that way", would you accept that answer?
I'm not trying to "disprove" anything - hell, if anything, I'm trying to "prove" something: there are no shining examples of human decency once every detail of that human - everything they've said, everything they've done - is "revealed." Therefore, single statements or actions to not measure up to an overall philosophy.
I never said that someone's overall philosophy is less than the sum of its parts. I said it was equal to it. So I'm "selling you" 2+2=4.
No, selected "single statements or actions" do not measure up. All actions and statements do.
Then you obviously believe something's missing from my account. What is missing?
Not "more important" -- more accurate. For example, you say that Ayn Rand hates gays by cherry-picking one or two statements in the face of many others that paint a much more complete picture. Similarly, others say that Noam Chomsky is a DOD lackey by cherry-picking one or two actions in the face of others that paint a much more complete picture.
Hypocrisy, to any extent, is surely a universal human quality. However, there are many degrees to which a person can be a hypocrite. Furthermore, it is not an unavoidable or excusable quality in any amount.
As an example, let's take the statement which really doesn't mean anymore than what I said - 'cept for a different word choice. Perhaps you're trying to take it in a different direction, but I'm not following.
I.e. those statements or actions - singularly - are less important than the overall picture. Less accurate, too, sure. But also less important. I could say you subtracted the word "important" (an important word in it's own right) and left me holding a "3". This would probably represent the 2s. I don't have any problem with the 2s.
1. It is ahistorical
Sure it would be nice to live in a society where everyone could live free for themselves, and their histories, but it objectivity does not address what people actually must go through to be a human in this world.
2. It is theoretically abstract without actually addressing lived realities.
Mentioned above, it would be cool to live where we don't view people as superior or inferior based on race (a social construct not genetic), class (again a social construct), gender (social again since we tend to view people as male and female despite the fact that their is transsexuality, 7 different sexes, and gender bending), sexuality (aren't we all a bit multisexual?). However historically this hasn't been the case, as such, how can we just go "let's all be objective now" and forget the past which as Marx says -himself a noted sexist- "weighs like an alp on the present".
3. It is therefore not radically contextual
You'd like to think that it could change overnight, but by claiming individuality without addressing the contemporary moment's themes of domination you're really paving the way for the dominant class to maintain their dominance while simulataneously giving them the basis to claim that they are not racist/classist/sexist/sexualist because giving subordinated peoples the same privileges that many dominant peoples were born with would be some sort of attack on the dominant class - which is the essence of neoliberalism. For example it's not all that worth it to claim objectivity when we live in a world where kids are sewing our soccer balls, tshirts, sneakers etc. for 12 cents a day. It's not going to change anything, it just clouds people's judgement of those in power.
In conclusion then I feel that Rand has her heart in the right place, but she is not interventionist enough to exact the change necessary to get to the point where objectivity could actually work. In other words, the playing field for all humans is nowhere near even enough to all of a sudden say "lets all be objective now", not when we still have 30% of our minority population living in poverty, not when our jails are being filled with minorities to benefit the rich, and not when the rich can continue to maintain their power without being checked. For example we can all bag on W, or Clinton or whomever, but their terms end and their power diminishes, whereas when was the last time we went after and removed the Phil Knights, and Bill Gates of the world from their perch of unvoted dominance? Until this change happens I will see your Ayn Rand and raise you Stuart Hall and Paulo Freire - we gotta fuck shit up before we can be objective.
What must people "go through" to be human?
Umm...this is weird. Would you not agree that gender and race views are different than they were 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 500 years ago? Is it your contention that progress to something approaching an ideal is impossible simply because "it's never been that way"???
Also, Rand's core philosophies don't really require everyone to subscribe to such viewpoints. Rather, Rand's core philosophies teach you to reject those viewpoints for yourself and to treat them in others with the simple derision you apply to any other illogical human behavior.
The dominant class of today is the class that controls government. Rand's philosophy rejects their tool (violence). And since we pay for those tools, eliminating our support will eliminate their power. So I don't really see how this is a valid refutation. Furthermore, I'm not sure how anyone would claim that Rand's philosophy requires "overnight" change???
I think Rand would have a good laugh over your use of the words "for all humans". Rand would tell you that making decisions based on "all humans" is close to the height of stupidity.
You've already "fucked shit up". That's your problem to begin with. Repeal your taxes. Repeal your laws. Dismantle any branch of government not concerned with the protection of the basic individual right of liberty. Do it slowly, if you feel it's necessary.
What I am saying is that before we can repeal taxes I want Bill Gates to go to the single worst public school in the United States and claim that his child will have the same educational and life opportunities that he/she would get at Gillman or whatever private school that child will go to. I want George W. Bush, and Cornel West to walk into a room and not have people assume things about them because of the hue of their skin. This can't happen if we go about objectivity the way Rand would like to. If we want a fair and just society to be objective in then the subordinated need to have a physical and ideological voice in this country (TV stations/newspapers/credit card companies/postions in political office/etc.) so that we are daily made conscious of the differences in opportunity between the priveleged and underprivileged (which is the Freirean model), we need to remove those who refuse to relinquish their power (the McLaren/Giroux/Guevara method), and then we can remove taxes and let people begin on a truly level playing field.
Can't you see that those dominating you are dominating you solely because they have the force of governments backing them up??? Lassez faire means no more patents, no more copyrights, no more tax breaks, no more tariffs, no more subsidies?
You think people like Bill Gates are "dominating" you, despite the fact that they do not force you to work for them or buy their products??? The same cannot be said for your government.
No one's life "depends" on Baseball, Nike, or sugar factories. A good life depends on achievement. And when that Dominican boy achieves something, repealing taxes ensures that his achievements cannot be expropriated by the Dominican boy who does not achieve anything.
By ensuring that those schools earn their money.
By recognizing that the playing field is comprised of three elements: body, mind and environment and the fact that those three things are not universally even, nor should they be.
In the last 40 years, you've expanded the size and influence of governments to heights not seen in generations, and largely destroyed the concept of the individual. Rand and neoliberalism are nearly opposites.
By ensuring that those who earn, own.
So you're a revenge hound, eh? Good luck with that.
If you want people to have a "physical and ideological voice", remove that which prevents them from speaking for themselves -- their obligations to another.
If you want remove those who refuse to relinquish their power, remove that which sanctions it and supports it -- your laws and taxes.
Are you fucking insane...do you understand that you don't have a choice when it comes to putting food on the table? Have you ever lived in, or known anyone that has had absolutely nothing to the point that they would die if they didn't sell drugs, play baseball, work 80 hour days for Nike? How can you achieve when you don't have anything to achieve in?
How? By taking away their money through things like NCLB? Doing better on standardized tests that are built for the dominant classes, since they are the ones who can afford to take test preps, get schooling from good instructors, and in schools that have things like books from the year 2000?
Why? I'm guessing the person telling you this is someone who was not brought up in a working class environment. You just don't get it, that's what rich people like Ayn Rand say to ease their minds.
Rand and neoliberalism are NOT nearly opposites. Government has little or no power anymore it's in corporations owned by collections of INDIVIDUALS. We live in a world where 1/2 of the richest countries in the world are corporations, and you are trying to tell me that government influences stuff, that's just wrong. Especially when you see who is in government, and how they get into and remain in it.
Sounds earily like a slaveowner mentality to me.
In capitalism money is what controls it's pretty simple...that's neoliberalism, the rolling back of government control and movement toward corporate control...that's rand-ISH. It's fucking this world up. Morover, Revenge is the word people who have privilege use when those who are dominated wish to regain privilege. That's not revenge that is justice.
Where do people get their information of the day? Where do people learn? Who controls what we see, hear, and what we cherish? Laws and taxes do NOT. It's corporately controlled media centers like FOX/DISNEY/Westinghouse etc. owned by the few but has the ideological control of the many. I say take those motherfuckers out and start a new publcily centered mediated world. Again that's not revenge, or jealousy that's a need to have more voices, majority voices, heard...not just the words of the privileged few that you so willingly listen to and love.
This is a fascinating conspiracy view you paint, but I have a lot of trouble marrying it to a world wherein anti-corporate politicians are still regularly elected. Can you even explain, if such corporate evil-doers hold the true power in this country, why we have corporate taxation?
Again, I'm having trouble marrying this to a world where companies like Enron go bankrupt, or a world where fortunes are regularly lost when consumers simply choose to withhold their money.
No.
Really? So no choices were involved in whatever you had for dinner tonight?
So you believe that there are people directly born into a situation where they have only 3 options: sell drugs, play baseball or work 80 hour days for Nike? Can you name one?
Every single person alive has a world to achieve in.
NCLB -- a standardized path implemented by a federal government without any consideration to the wishes of a community is what I'm railing against, not supporting.
Separating education from forced taxation requires that a school earn its income, and that means it must directly appeal to the wishes of the community that supports it.
I was brought up in a family where my father was too drunk to work and my mother was a waitress and then a social worker. I'd advise you not to make any assumptions about the environment I grew up in.
Why would my mind need easing?
Neo-liberalism requires the marriage of government and corporations. Rand requires the complete separation of the two.
Care to justify this at all? Government has more power than ever, measured by its own size and influence. Government now infringes on more aspects in our daily lives than ever in American history. All the corporations in this country combined generate roughly $12T annually. The federal government alone now expropriates 1/12 of that. The vast majority of the "evil" corporations you would likely cite are owned not by a few individuals but rather average 401k stockholders and other investors, the very people you're pretending to defend.
So the government has no influence in the War in Iraq? The government had no influence in the events of 9/11? The government had no influence in the trillions expropriated in the past year? The government had no influence in the incarceration of millions of Americans?
Again, the very people you're pretending to defend still elect those leaders.
How so? A slaveowner earns nothing, which is the exact opposite of what I said.
No. Neoliberalism is marrying corporations and government. It's putting the force of government into the hands of a few, and it will be the death of this world if it goes unchecked.
If you believe Ayn Rand wants goverments and business in bed together, you don't know anything about Ayn Rand.
I'm sure to you revenge and justice are no different. An eye for an eye.....
When a slave enslaves his master, that's revenge. When a slave destroys that which makes slavery possible, that's justice. The oppression you're lamenting is made possible by the force your governments have monopolized, now being wielded by corporations, unions, and other special interests groups who understood your game better than you do.
From their own resources, or from whomever they wish to trade for it.
From their own resources, or from whomever they wish to trade for it.
We do, or whomever we wish to trade our control to.
"Take those motherfuckers out" isn't revenge, huh? The "voice" you speak of sounds like nothing more than a gun.
And there you go....you've now justified every injustice you previously pretended to attack.
If the gun is "the best way", on what grounds can you reject those whose guns are aimed at you?
Mao Tse-Tung said something similar to that. He was a nifty leader.
I don't know everything you done. All I know is that, above, you said that the best solution to your problem was the use of guns. If you believe you have that right, so does everyone else.
How in God's name can you claim ownership of land when you're about to demonstrate that the only right of ownership extends from violence???